Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 21 of 21

Thread: Repugs move to seal terror trial plan

  1. #16
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    and how many of those supposed US citizens were grabbed off the battlefields in the middle east..and how many were just average citizens pulled off the streets of say Des Moines Iowa?..it would be interesting to see a breakdown of which US citizens are there and the circumstances that led to them being there..you seem to know so much about Gitmo I would think you could provide that info, no?

  2. #17
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Lordy, this was years ago.. it'll take some digging.

    Still, the fact that the government is now ALLOWED to do this doesn't give you even a moment of pause?

    I'd be packing my bags and moving the fuck away as fast as I could.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #18
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Lordy, this was years ago.. it'll take some digging.

    Still, the fact that the government is now ALLOWED to do this doesn't give you even a moment of pause?

    I'd be packing my bags and moving the fuck away as fast as I could.
    It is disturbing and depressing. I am just glad that it has not yet gotten to where we all are subject to what non-citizens are subject to....we would really be fucked if it got to that point. I think this is really going to backfire and many groups from the far left to Libertarians to independent-minded gun owner nuts and even far right types will object to this shit. I think(and hope) this is really going to bite the administration in the ass a little down the road. I just hope that the terrorist groups realize what is going on and do not stage any attacks against the US itself-that would be just what Bush would want to consolidate his 'rule by fearmongering'.

  4. #19
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    erm, again i repeat that US citizens ARE being held in GITMO, and they can send you there at a whim.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #20
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,811

    Default

    this is what the New York Times article said"
    "Those subject to commission trials would be any person ''who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents.'' Proponents say this definition would not apply to U.S. citizens"

    I am going to assume this is true unless you can prove this wrong or can tell me which US citizens are being held and will have this applied to them. Who are these US citizens? Were they caught in Afghanistan like the 'American Taliban? You are acting like they are going to be dragging people off the streets and 'we are going to be devoid of rights' You have taken the position that we are all going to lose our rights of habeas corpus..but have not given any info to support this.

    1.You said we are all going to lose our rights to habeas corpus
    2. I pointed out that it appears that this is only applying to 'enemy combatants' and not US citizens.
    3. You said there are US citizens being held in Gitmo and it will be applied to them
    4. I am asking you who are these US citizens being held..and where is your evidence that what was said(that US citizens would be exempt from this) is not true?

    *of course I am opposed to the loss of habeas corpus to anyone-including non citizens and 'enemy combatants'*

  6. #21
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Most of the attention in the press has focused on subsection (i) of the definition, which would designate as an UEC any "person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces)." And that subsection is, indeed, broad, and fairly indeterminate, depending on how "materially supported hostilities" is interpreted (something that the Administration apparently could do without much or any judicial review).

    But the really breathtaking subsection is subsection (ii), which would provide that UEC is defined to include any person "who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense."

    Read literally, this means that if the Pentagon says you're an unlawful enemy combatant -- using whatever criteria they wish -- then as far as Congress, and U.S. law, is concerned, you are one, whether or not you have had any connection to "hostilities" at all.

    This definition is not limited to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. It's not limited to aliens -- it covers U.S. citizens as well. It's not limited to persons captured or detained overseas. And it is not even limited to the armed conflict against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, authorized by Congress on September 18, 2001. Indeed, on the face of it, it's not even limited to a time of war or armed conflict; it could apply in peacetime.

    Therefore if, as everyone is assuming, this definition does establish who may be detained by the military outside the civilian justice system, it would quite literally give the Secretary of Defense the statutory authority to detain just about anyone he wants, indefinitely. And if that's the case, then the habeas-stripping provision would really be the least of it, because even with all the due process and habeas protections in the world, it would be almost impossible to challenge the grounds on which someone is detained if the Executive itself can establish what the permissible grounds for detention are.
    an explanation to that "wont affect US citizens" thing.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Repugs at it again in Ohio regarding gay marriage
    By Sojiita in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: April 3rd, 2006, 06:36 PM
  2. Repugs circling Cheney's wagon
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 15th, 2006, 11:09 AM
  3. Repugs mad at Cheney for shooting a geezer and not saying sorry
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 14th, 2006, 10:53 PM
  4. REpugs pushing for plan to end war. Wow.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 15th, 2005, 05:43 AM
  5. Repugs urge reining in Cheney.
    By buttmunch in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: October 31st, 2005, 05:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •